MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963380471 · doi:10.1089/humc.2018.201

The Landscape of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products: Authorization, Discontinuations, and Cost

2019· review· en· W2963380471 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Gene Therapy Clinical Development · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthorizationCell therapyMedicineGenetic enhancementFood and drug administrationStem-cell therapyBusinessPharmacologyCellInternal medicineGeneBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cell and gene therapy products belong to a diverse class of biopharmaceuticals known as advanced therapy medicinal products. Cell and gene therapy products are used for the treatment and prevention of diseases that until recently were only managed chronically. The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of market authorizations, discontinuations, and prices of cellular and gene therapy products worldwide. Data and Methods: We conducted an electronic search of authorized cell, tissue-engineered, and gene therapy products from the databases of the main drug regulatory agencies. The analysis excluded hematopoietic progenitor cell cord blood products authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Price information was derived from the Red Book (Truven Health Analytics) for the United States, health technology assessment agencies for Europe, and other public sector sources and company news for other countries. We also searched the scientific literature for authorizations, discontinuations, and price information using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases. All cost data were converted to U.S. dollars. Descriptive analysis was conducted in this study. Results: There were 52 different cell, tissue engineering and gene therapy products with 69 market authorizations in the world as of December 31, 2018. The products included 18 (34%) cell therapies, 23 (43.4%) tissue engineered products, and 12 (22.6%) gene therapies. There were 21 (30.4% of all authorizations) cell therapy, 26 (37.7%) tissue-engineered, and 22 (31.9%) gene therapy market authorizations. The EMA withdrew the authorization for two tissue engineering products, one cell therapy and one gene therapy, and New Zealand lapsed approval of one cell therapy. Most products were first authorized after 2010, including 10 (83.3%) gene therapies, 13 (72.2%) cell therapies, and 13 (56.5%) tissue-engineered products. The treatment price for four allogenic cell therapies varied from $2,150 in India to $200,000 in Canada. The treatment price for three autologous cell therapies ranged from $61,500 in the United Kingdom to a listed price of $169,206 in the United States. Tissue-engineered treatment prices varied from $400 in South Korea to $123,154 in Japan. Gene therapy treatment prices ranged from $5,501 for tonogenchoncel-L in South Korea to $1,398,321 for alipogene tiparvovec in Germany. Conclusions: A significant number of new cell, tissue, and gene therapies have been approved in the past decade. Most products were conditionally authorized and targeted rare cancers, genetic diseases, and other debilitating diseases. However, there are also products approved for cosmetic reasons. Cell, tissue, and gene therapies are among the most expensive therapies available. Healthcare systems are not prepared to assume the cost of future therapies for a myriad of rare diseases and common diseases of epidemic proportions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it